From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: ell@access.digex.net (Ell) Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/05 Message-ID: <35f79e53.98130474@news.erols.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388046577 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <35f23ce2.7649859@news.erols.com> <6snn1b$c90$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35ef7dff.24318728@news.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 904963753 16201 207.172.54.27 (5 Sep 1998 02:49:13 GMT) Organization: Universe Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: ell@access.digex.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) wrote: >Ell wrote: >> >>"Robert Martin" wrote: >>> >>>You had best define 'unstructured' in this context. Dijkstra's definition >>>of 'unstructured control flow' is control flow that does not conform >>>precisely to the four standard sequencing elements {sequence, selection, top >>>exit loop, bottom exit loop}, all of which have a single entry and a single >>>exit. >>Where is this documented? Where has Dijkstra stated that flow control >>must conform precisely to the 4 specific elements you mention? I know >>that sequence, selection, and *looping * are major appropriate flow >>control elements, but please show where Dijkstra says that "top exit >>loop" and "bottom exit loop" are, or should be standard flow control >>elements. >When Robert does so, do you promise to finally admit you're wrong? :-) How long will take for him not to show evidence, as he well should, before you acknowledge that he's blowing smoke? And moreover at that point will you acknowledged that you gave RCM the "gut feeling" benefit of the doubt, as evidenced by your comments above, because you have an ideological affinity with him, or for some other non-valid reason? Whatever it is that causes you to spontaneously adopt RCM's position in a discussion, it is not based on facts. Because generally I've produced more concrete, and more accurate facts on the issues than he has over the years. And likewise I have generally adopted the more correct position in discussions on comp.object over the years. If you acknowledge this, will you then quit as proposed moderator? Because as evidenced here, you will accept RCM's position without facts simply because you have an ideological affinity, or other non-valid reason to do so. Elliott